Historians on the israeli arab conflict

[eastbank2]

I was curious to know which historians the members of this forum recommend to read about the Israeli Arab conflict. My vote would go to Benny Morris. I am curious to know how others feel.

[KettleWhistle]

Can't think of anyone in particular. I'd say read as much as you can, so that you can identify revisionisms and inaccuracies, as well as credible historical data.

[Mediocrates]

Judith Apter Klinghoffer, Edwin Black, Hillay Zmora, Richard Gid Powers, Richard Hofstader, Bernard Lewis.

[Mediocrates]

There are tons of others if you want lay histories of the Jews: Paul Johnson, Chaim Potok and Thomas Cahill come to mind.

[KettleWhistle]

Robert Zeltzer, Arthur Hertzberg.

[Mira]

I always tell people that if they read Morris, then they should also read Efraim Karsh's book "Fabricating Israeli History..." http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/071468063X/qid=1106250272/sr=8-3/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-9508726-2063902?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Many people I know have also read "Arafat's War" and said that it was very insightful: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0802117589/qid=1106250272/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/104-9508726-2063902?v=glance&s=books&n=507846


The books that I would recommend as essential reading are:

Conor Cruise O'Brien's "The Siege..." He was Ireland's diplomat to the UN in the 50s: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0671600443/qid=1106250452/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-9508726-2063902?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israel Conflict, Second Edition by Mitchell G. Bard

A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East, by David Fromkin http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0805068848/qid=1106250624/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/104-9508726-2063902

Six Days of War : June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East, by Michael Oren http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0345461924/qid=1106250680/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/104-9508726-2063902

And finally, if you have a particular interest in the UN, I would add "The Kirkpatrick Mission: Diplomacy Without Apology America at the United Nations 1981-1985, by Alan Gerson

[Toga]

The Case for Israel by Alan Dershowitz

[Reffo]

This link gives a lot of useful information and leads to other references:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/#1

[frizzer1]

The Case for Israel by Alan Dershowitz

Excellent reference.Dershowitz answers all of the charges made by the anti-israel/left/arab/muslim crowd.
If anyone ever has a problem responding to the criticisms of israel and israel's right to exist,this book is a must-have.
To my knowledge no one has ever successfully challenged any facts put forth by Dershowitz in this book.

[I am David]

Thomas Friedman! :)

JK really....

Seriously though, the only book I've read entirely for the subject is "The Idiots guide to the Middle East Conflict", no kidding, its actually a pretty good book. I'd say that that's its very fair and balanced (Which means it shows Israel in a positive light, heh) If my memory serves me correctly. It's written by Mitchell Bard who I've seen on some Israeli sites so I think he's pro Israel...

But "From Beirut to Jerusalem" by Friedman was pretty interesting.

[Reffo]

Sorry Eastbank2, I just noticed that from your profile you are highly likely to be aware of the link that I recommended in my earlier post. So here is another suggestion:

Six Days of War, by Michael B. Oren, published by Penguin 2003

It is a very good description of the events leading up to the war and it has a good description of the behind the scene politics from a number of perspectives.

[Leon]

Joan Peters, Efraim Karsh, Alan Dershowitz and "the Haj" and "Exodus" by Leon Uris. Though characters in Uris's novels are fictional the stories are based on and give accurate depictions of true historical events

[danholo]

Oren's book about the Six Day War is the best and most objective work I've ever read on the whole Arab-Israeli conflict. The amount of sources he's used is staggering. Anybody should read it, no matter what side they lean towards.

Arafat's War by Efraim Karsh is interesting but can't help to feel that it has some bias, but couldn't find any flaws in it though. His other book "Fabricating Israeli History" is a must if you buy into Morris' revisionist history. Seems to me though that Morris has toned down a bit and leaned more toward the Israeli side of things...

[Ahava]

Benny Morris for an objective complete view.
Alan Dershowitz for countering specific anti-Israel claims that aren't true or just.

[Leon]

Benny Morris for an objective complete view.


Its unlikely that you would get an objective complete view from Israeli revisionist historians since they are trying to pander to and impress a certain audience outside of Israel and/or cater to a certain political bias -- and they are usually willing to sacrifise the truth in order to do this.

Good thing that you mention Dershowitz, because he manages to counter some of Morris's claims.

[Ahava]

Its unlikely that you would get an objective complete view from Israeli revisionist historians since they are trying to pander to and impress a certain audience outside of Israel and/or cater to a certain political bias -- and they are usually willing to sacrifise the truth in order to do this.
About revisionists like Avi Shlaim or anti-zionists like Norman Finkelstein or Noam Chomsky I'd agree with you. But Morris, I really believe he's just interested in the way of things, the truth, besides any agenda (because his own opinions seem to be pretty right-wing).


Good thing that you mention Dershowitz, because he manages to counter some of Morris's claims.

I believe Dershowitz has written a very good, useful book, it's one-sided though. Criticism that he could have on Morris could be that Morris lays the focus on certain things too much, like focussing on the crimes of the Israeli army in the war while crimes naturally happen in every war, and that Morris should have focussed more on the why of the war. Or just a difference of assessment (like, how many Palestinians had to flee because they were really driven out and how many fled simply out of fear? noone knows). I don't think he really 'counters' any 'claims' of Morris as being untruthful. If you think yes, could you give me an example?

[Leon]

Unfortunatley in this conflict you have to be one sided - after all there only one party which is clearly in the wrong - disrespecting the rule of law and basic human rights - and one which is clearly in the right.

There is no need for so called "objectivness" esp when the truth is on your side and when your people are suffering.

[Leon]

don't think he really 'counters' any 'claims' of Morris as being untruthful. If you think yes, could you give me an example?

I belive he does in the "Case for Israel" from memory. Efriam Karsh does an excellent job of countering Morris.

In the past Morris claimed that a large number if not the majority of Arab "refugees" were forced out of their homes by the Israelis. This made Morris popular among Israels enemies and Morris's work was clearly inspired by an extremist political agenda. I hear that these days Morris is changing...

[Ahava]

I belive he does in the "Case for Israel" from memory. Efriam Karsh does an excellent job of countering Morris.

So name a concrete example.


In the past Morris claimed that a large number if not the majority of Arab "refugees" were forced out of their homes by the Israelis. This made Morris popular among Israels enemies and Morris's work was clearly inspired by an extremist political agenda. I hear that these days Morris is changing...

Morris didn't just 'claim', he exhaustively investigated. He never changed his opinion, he just got misunderstood and cleared that up later, saying that by showing how Palestinians were driven out, he doesn't think that was wrong.
I was hugely impressed by this article (http://www.logosjournal.com/morris.htm).

[Mediocrates]

So before he said "I hate all those evil Israelis" and now he says "I hate all we evil Israelis". He's spent a career projecting moral relativism and now he comes to the conclusion that not only is terrorism OK, so are all the people he already hated.


Pathetic.
Like I said there is no truth, only agendas.

[Ahava]

So before he said "I hate all those evil Israelis" and now he says "I hate all we evil Israelis". He's spent a career projecting moral relativism and now he comes to the conclusion that not only is terrorism OK, so are all the people he already hated.


Pathetic.
Like I said there is no truth, only agendas.

Sorry Medio, but I really do think Morris is genuine. Have you ever read the interview properly? He's never said he hates any Israelis. What's more, he says why he not only understands, but even thinks it was necessary and in the situation the right thing to do, what happened during the Independence war.

[Zlatorog]

Like I said there is no truth, only agendas.
Perhaps the truth is sometimes 'for personal use' only. I had to find out if 'the non allied communists' had been lying to me, especially after a friend of mine got deported, came back illegally, ... was fine; regarding Israel I've asked an israeli historian about it, she replied with a list of leftist historians, wow, no wonder I had to teach her friend about Iran and Syria kidding...

Here in this country we've always had access to the weirdest places on earth, we've visited the Khomeini family during 'the revolution', had some CIA documents for decades, rediscovered Sudan, the disappearing kuffar tribes in India...

The State Department report on global antisemitism is quite accurate, it has been discussed here and in the neighbouring countries.

Jasenovac Research Institute has some biased articles, I think it's currently offline, I like this document though http://www.jasenovac.org/images/jews_of_yugoslavia_1941_1945.pdf

but here's something a little less complicated

During late-night strolls along the banks of the Ljubljanica River, we heard the dull roar of NATO bombers making their way from the nearby Aviano Air Base, in Italy, to targets in Serbia. Nobody seemed worried by the disruption; in fact, all eyes turned skyward and small smiles broke out on the faces of passers-by.

Riight... (http://www.travelandleisure.com/invoke.cfm?objectid=7ADED7A9-9FA4-44F2-B74C40C3F8BF8601)

Though the particulars of their histories are distinct, Iraq and Yugoslavia have surprisingly similar historical roots. Both countries were created—one could well say invented—by peacemakers right after World War I. And in both places, several different, often hostile, ethnic groups were forced to live together inside internationally determined boundaries that had been drawn with insufficient regard to existing allegiances and rivalries.

In 1991, the pressure of ethnic separatism led to the collapse of a centralized Yugoslavian authority. But in Iraq, Saddam Hussein crushed every uprising or hint of one, even using poison gas against his own people, while the world looked the other way. In the end, the Serbian people, after losing the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo, overthrew Milosevic in the fall of 2000. Saddam, more brutally effective than Milosevic in suppressing rebellions, would be removed from power only by an American invasion.

If the breakup of Yugoslavia was ultimately acceptable to, and negotiated by, the outside world, the international consensus in regard to Iraq has been to keep the country together, despite the fact that it is composed of at least three distinct ethnic or religious groups.Today, these two countries face different but related problems: in Yugoslavia, building several viable smaller states out of the debris; in Iraq, creating a functioning central government in a country previously held together by force and now extremely chaotic.

Richard Holbrooke (http://www.travelandleisure.com/Invoke.cfm?Objectid=F4DCF4C2-5664-465E-BB8EA82FE8A2E987)